Does Obama Think the Government is "Jobs R Us?"

Verizon wireless has a very effective ad campaign featuring a little girl named Suzy and her lemonade stand.  Suzy sits on her corner selling her homemade drinks and then, while using her dad's smartphone as a calculator, she suddenly realizes that her lemonade stand has much more potential than she could have ever imagined.

In a series of events, Suzy brainstorms, tests her product, repackages it, hires employees, expands her business, raises money and voila, Suzy's lemonade is available in retail stores.

Who would have guessed that this would be the perfect 2012 presidential election ad?

This ad perfectly captures Mitt Romney's message that entrepreneurs fuel the economy---small businesses lead to job growth---venture capital money is not evil---and businesses, not government, drive the economy.

Just imagine for one moment if Suzy had to face the regulations that President Obama would like to impose on successful businesses.

Suzy would probably be fined for violating child labor laws, her friends / employees would unionize, Suzy would be required to provide health care for each of them, she would have to comply with strict and imposing regulations on where and how she buys her lemons and then at the end of the day, Suzy would be required to give up half of her profits because it just would not be "fair" to all the other children in the neighborhood who didn't do a lemonade stand.

***

Many political analysts would argue that this year's election is going to be a referendum on capitalism.  I think they are right.

Although the left may not admit it, their disdain for capitalism is becoming increasingly clear.  Attacks on Mitt Romney's successes, his wealth and his business experience have been relentless as the Obama team attempt to portray Mitt Romney as a wealthy, greedy job killer who immorally pursued wealth accumulation.

Mitt Romney responds to it by arguing that attacking his business, his career experience and his successes are an attack on the American Dream.  Furthermore, he argues that to label him a "job killer" simply because he helped businesses become more profitable is a perfect example of how this president does not understand free enterprise.

Over the weekend, political commentator Britt Hume appeared on Fox News Sunday.  He said, "The president and his team seem to think that the idea of creating wealth is unrelated to creating jobs.  Every business person who runs a hamburger stand understands you are trying to make a profit, and that the business of making a profit has jobs as a bi-product. It's not as if there is a favorite industry called 'Jobs R Us,' which is in the business for the purpose of creating jobs."

Hume went on to say, "That isn't how it works, and I think it makes the president sound to people who are not deeply sophisticated about Wall Street like he doesn't get how the whole system works."  He continued, "I think it may be in fact be true that he doesn't get how the whole system works."

Brit Hume might be right, the president just might not get it.  After all, he has never run a business, never managed payroll, never expanded a company and never had to shut down a company because it struggled to make ends meet.

The president does not get it.

***

In this reelection year, President Obama continues to attack free enterprise and private equity.  He continues to advocate that higher taxes on the wealthy will lead to job growth and a more prosperous nation.  The biggest problem with his theory?  The government does not have a good track record of it and furthermore, our government has a despicable spending problem.

Are we really supposed to believe that our politicians will use discretion in how they would allocate an increase in tax revenue?  

Unfortunately, our politicians appear to be bound to lobbyists, they have favors to return to their highest campaign donors, and their allegiances are tied to their political party leaders.  Let's be honest, they are always planning their reelection.  Will they really be able to discern between what is right vs. their obligation to repay a favor?

We just saw this happen with President Obama's funding of clean energy resources.  He used billions and billions of tax dollars to fund programs and finance clean energy companies with the hope it would stimulate the economy.  As time has passed, even billions and billions of dollars could not help those companies thrive and most of them have gone bankrupt.

Controversy is now swirling around the fact that most of these clean energy companies were owned by some of Obama's biggest campaign donors.  A new book by the Hoover Institution details that 4 out of every 5 renewable energy companies backed by the Energy Department were "run by Obama fueled financial backers."

Heritage Action for America put together a list of clean energy companies that have received tax payer funds.  Most of these companies are struggling or have already filed for bankruptcy.

• Evergreen Solar
• SpectraWatt
• Solyndra (received $535 million)
• Beacon Power (received $43 million)
• AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
• Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
• SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
• First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
•  Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
• Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
• Amonix (received 5.9 million)
• The National Renewable Energy Lab
• Fisker Automotive
• Abound Solar (received $400 million)
• Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
• Solar Trust of America
• A123 Systems (received $279 million)
• Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
• Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
• Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

We must ask ourselves, did President Obama use true discretion in how those billions of dollars were allocated?  Or was he tied to a campaign debt?

We are fools to think that our current politicians and leaders have the ability to use true discretion.  They repeatedly fund broken programs, they permit billions of dollars to fund pork projects, they fund projects for their allies, they borrow trillions of dollars, they don't repay those loans and they refuse to limit their reckless spending habits to the confines of a budget.

Therefore, I have a very difficult time supporting the president in increasing taxes with the hopes that it will stimulate the economy and lead to job growth and prosperity.  I do not have the confidence that our leaders will use true discretion in how that money would be spent.  

Unlike the president, I do not believe that the government is the best forum for job creation.  To use Brit Hume's words, I don't think the government is a "Jobs R Us."

Reuters Image

Mitt Romney gets it.  He understands how free enterprise works and and what actually fuels job creation.  For 25 years, he was trained in how to help business thrive.  For 25 years, he analyzed what it takes for businesses to be profitable so they can expand and hire more employees.  Mitt Romney became an expert at it and he was extremely successful at what he did.

As I mentioned yesterday, Romney founded a company and over the years, its investments have been successful 80% of them time---only 5% have ended in bankruptcies.  Can the same be said of the investments made by our president?

For our troubled economic times, isn't Romney's experience what we really need?

Mitt Romney is coming to Washington DC with a unique set of skills.   Mitt Romney has spent his career surrounded with entrepreneurs like "Suzy."  He gets her.  He knows that Suzy will do a much better job with her money than the government ever could with its attempt to redistribute it.

Go Mitt.